IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the powers under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act are broad enough to allow revisions against intimation under Section 143(1), emphasizing the importance of substantial justice.

ORDER :

NIRAL R. MEHTA, J.

1. The petitions involve similar facts and identical issues, therefore, they were heard together to be treated for disposal by this common judgment and order.

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the issues involved and with consent and request of learned advocates for the parties, both these Special Civil Applications were taken up for final consideration today, by treating Special Civil Application No.14025 of 2020 as lead matter.

3. Rule returnable in both the Special Civil Applications forthwith. Learned advocate Ms.Maithili Mehta waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Revenue.

4. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.3.2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad under Section 260 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 264 of the Act came to be rejected, holding it as not maintainable.

5. Brief facts of the case are as under :

5.1 The Petitioner filed its return of income for AY 2007-08 on 30.10.2007, declaring total income at Nil pursuant to the scheme of demerger which was approved by this Court, a business unit of Adani Energy Limited was demerged and vested into the petitioner company. In terms of the order dated 9th December, 2009 passed by this Court under Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, the appointed date of this order was directed to be 1st January, 2007. As a result of the aforesaid demerger, the Applicant - assessee had paid a consideration of Rs.33,98,90,680/- over and above the net assets of the company which was towards goodwill. Goodwill being an intangible asset, the petitioner company was entitled to depreciation under Section 32 of the Act on the amount of Rs.33,98,90,680/-. In view of the fact that the order was passed on 9th December, 2009, the petitioner made claim for deduction of depreciation allowance for the A.Y. 2010-11 and all subsequent assessment years on the aforesaid value of the goodwill. This claim was accepted by the then Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2011-12 but was disturbed by then Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 considering AY 2007-08 as the first year for claim of depreciation. This order of CIT was challenged by the petitioner and ITAT quashed the same. In later years, the Assessing Officer itself computed the claim of depreciation considering AY 2007-08 as the first year although the petitioner had not claimed any depreciation in AY 2007-08 to AY 2009-10. The ITAT vide order dated 17th October, 2018 (for AY 2009-10) finally concluded this controversy and the petitioner - company's claim was accepted by the ITAT for even AY 2009-10. In this regards, comparative working of depreciation on goodwill, as computed by respondent and Assessing Officer is provided as under:

5.2 The petitioner, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, filed application under Section 264 of the Act. However, the respondent, vide order dated 4.3.2020, rejected the petitioner’s revision application on the ground of being not maintainable. Hence, the present petition is filed seeking appropriate reliefs.

6. Heard learne